Don't rush into another forest "restoration" act

The policy-makers behind President George W. Bush's 2003 Healthy Forest Restoration Act share a common delusion with the policy promoters of Sen. Ron Wyden's proposed forest restoration act. These industry-environmental collaborations are either naive -- actually believing their policies will result in compatible forest practices -- or, as with other special-interest groups, they are deliberately exercising unfair advantages with federal forests -- forests that belong to all Americans, not just Oregonians.

The Oregon Eastside Forests Restoration, Old Growth Protection, and Jobs Act would short-circuit the restoration progress the Forest Service is already making under existing regulations and management. As proposed, it could undermine laws forged for the long-term good of the entire national forest system. Inside players like Boise Cascade, the largest public timber purchaser and 12th largest global wood product producer, could employ this act to gradually privatize federal forests.

Wyden sent a letter to Tom Partin, president of the American Forest Resource Council, committing "to work to see that more hazardous fuels funds are used to harvest merchantable sawlogs" and to "work for an assured supply of timber to preserve the milling infrastructure which makes it possible for the Forest Service to do the work necessary to restore forest health." The act's "restoration" policies are admittedly intended to deliver far greater volumes of valuable ponderosa pine at disrespectfully low prices into a glutted log market, resulting in further loss of forest capital.

Failing to reduce hazardous fuels while logging mature timber to fund "forest health" operations is what made Bush's forest restoration policy so blatantly dishonest in practice. Myself and other foresters reviewed many projects where the largest old trees (some had resisted centuries of fire) were logged under the guise of "fire prevention." These "restored" forest stands were left devalued, dried out and filled with flammable logging slash.

A practitioner with decades of experience in dry forest restoration, I've come to realize that the real work needed to restore eastern Oregon's hammered forestlands rarely requires heavy equipment like harvesters, yarders and loaders. What's needed are boots and chain saws. Thinning by cutting, lopping, piling and burning excess small trees is almost always more restorative than another round of logging. This activity is also kinder to eastern Oregon's most important resource -- fragile, already impacted soils. Properly contracted and implemented, this work could employ more people across more acres than subsidizing increased log supplies for a few mills.

A recent editorial in The Oregonian said: "There ought to be a sense of urgency to push, push, push the bill through Congress and into law." If our congressional delegation pushes this legislation, they should scale it down at every level so our forest managers can do a good, scientifically defensible job. Then plug the many loopholes to make it more honest and protect the greater public's forest resources. And, hopefully, they will revise the act to preserve democratic process by allowing citizens to participate in project planning and to appeal exploitative proposals.

Oregon's leaders shouldn't be rushed. This "restoration" act will significantly impact the next 20 years of federal forest management.

Roy Keene of Eugene is a forest restoration consultant and private timber broker.